Which is the Leviathan?
This is a week to ponder the role of private equity in portfolios, in what may be an early phase of a great investment and technological explosion. There seems to be no sign of higher interest rates and a stubborn refusal by Central Banks to care much about inflation. The talk of a UK raise always looked to us like a head fake which we ignored.
Spotting good and bad private equity
So first to private equity, a beast that comes in many guises, not all benign from an investor viewpoint. All liquidity fueled equity explosions come with a heavy loading of chancers; Bonnie and Clydeâs rationale for bank robbery remains valid.
Good private equity relies on management being superior to that of their targets. This can be in their analysis, their execution, their swiftness of foot or their innovation. All of this generally flourishes away from the hidebound inertia of many listed companies and their professional Boards of tame box tickers.
Bad private equity uses accounting tricks, the malleable fiction that the last price is the right price in particular, and the terrible phrase âdiscounted revenue multipleâ which is a nice conceit for ânever made a profitâ. All of these share the same vice of management marking their own work.
So, we struggle with the likes of Scottish Mortgage and its little array of unquoted Chinese firms, the alphabet soup of non-voting share classes and love affair with management. Maybe they are that skilled, but nothing that looks like a real two-way market is evident to us, in many of these valuations. We have by contrast long admired Melrose Industries for their quite ruthless devotion to turning over their investments, good or bad and stapling executive pay to actual cash realizations paid to investors.
Where we stand â given our strategy
For an Absolute Return specialist there are added constraints: we want to hold under twenty positions altogether and all in ones we can sell tomorrow afternoon. And we like holdings where valuations are transparent, there is no gearing (there is usually quite enough in the private equity deals already), and you can pick them up for a fat double digit discount: oh, and we do like a yield too.
So, we are looking for big, listed options with hundreds of high-quality funds bundled together and for any yield, a bias towards management buy outs. We are certainly not at the venture capital end, with silly pricing, high fail rates, unrealistic managers, and not a decent accountant in sight and aspirations to change the world. Met those, invested in too many, and donated more shirts off my back than I care to enumerate to their serial failures and inexhaustible funding rounds.
But there are good things about Private Equity, one is that in a rising market, it can be like clipping a coupon. The accounting rules require them to be backward looking, so coming out of a trough they are typically reporting on valuations that are three or four months old, which in turn reflects business activity up to six months old. As they trade at a discount of typically 25% or so, you can buy today at a 25% discount to the value of the business they were doing in the spring. There are no guarantees, but for most, that was a lot worse than current conditions, so todayâs price is simply wrong. This is a time machine that lets you buy now but pay at old prices.
Watch for built in volatility in private equity
These lags are complex, the reference points are often public market valuations, and so there is volatility built into them. While in an Absolute Return fund, not only are choices limited but the overall exposure must be too. However, in those rare purple patches of fast recovery and expansion they are excellent for performance.
What kills these bonanzas off is tight credit. In part they need debt for trade, but also their realizations rely heavily on it. A closed IPO market does them no good (just as they enjoy an exuberant one). That is a risk, as liquidity starts to tighten, that this will hurt, but as Powell and the Bank of England both showed, there is no political appetite for that just yet.
The UK and US on taming the leviathan
Indeed, Sunakâs UK budget yet again feels reckless, devoid of any discipline and with every department cashing in. Government spending is predicted to rise to 42% of GDP by 2026, a fifty year high. Healthcare alone is predicted to have grown by 40% in real terms since 2009 (both estimates from the oddly named Office for Budget Responsibility). At that level of loading, it is inching closer to hollowing out the entire budget and causing it to implode. (Leviathan was just such a creature âbecause by his bigness he seemes not one single creature, but a coupling of divers together; or because his scales are closed, or straitly compacted togetherâ feels an apt description of this new giant state apparatus.)
But that gamble means there is no room to pay higher interest rates, or the economy will be reduced to a double-sided monster. The one face devoted to raising debt and levying taxes and paying interest, the other to feeding out of control public spending, with nothing left in between.
Thanks in a slightly odd way to a Democrat Senator, America has avoided throwing itself under that same bus, but with no effective political opposition the UK is now powerless to resist. Sterlingâs relentless decline from the summer high and a FTSE 100 index still below its pre-COVID peak signify what markets feel about all this.
From the London Stock Exchange graph
So, while we were more bearish than we have been all year, in terms of asset allocation, at the end of October, we have yet to call time on the Private Equity cycle, that has provided such a powerful boost this year. It still feels good value to us.
Of course, we recognize too, that the populist fear is of the wealth creators and an opposing adoration for wealth consumption. Unlike politicians, however, we are tasked with producing real results not vapid dreams.
I guess we can each choose which to regard as the leviathan â the burgeoning state, or private equity.
Charles Gillams
Monogram Capital Management Ltd
Thin ice skaters or savants?
Are we drifting out further from the shore of reason, confident we can slide gracefully back to safety, or do we have insight others lack? Perhaps rates just canât rise, whatever the inflation rate? If so, they are a paper tiger. While in a week others have pondered the failure of UK investing during this century, we look at why our biggest bank seems to hate the country.
Iâm talking about the economics prognostications from HSBC, our largest bank. Following an intellectually flawed change in accounting standards (yes, another one), on top of the insanity of âmark to marketâ comes the âpredicted loan loss modelâ.
Now professional bankers (unlike those in fintech) donât make loans to lose money.
So, the politicians have instead required them to assume that they do.
Do the regulators know the industry theyâre regulating?
Imagine portfolio management where you assume a certain portion of your buys always fail. Might be true, but how? And if you admit you have to buy a certain number of your holdings to instantly lose money, what do your investors feel?
But although banks advance money on the basis of their credit committee assessments, the hordes of regulators deem some of it is immediately lost. Being rational people on the whole, the banks, not great fans of predicting the future (given their record), hire economists to do this for them.
Economists, as we know, actually know little, but they do build nice econometric models. The regulators, who know even less, tweak the models, the bank Boards (see above) also tweak them. Soon every model is so tweaked that the economists wonder why they bothered.
UK shown as the riskiest of places to lend
Which leads us to page 62 of the HSBC Interim Report. We read it, so you donât have to. There on the excitingly named, but dull as ditch water section called âRiskâ it is set out.
Now HSBC lends globally: Mexico, India, Vietnam, Peoples Republic of China. So, guess where âThe highest degree of uncertainty in expected credit loss estimatesâ relates to? Apparently, the basket case to end all wicker weaving is . . . Yes, the UK.
How?
Well first up their âcentral scenarioâ model sees the short-term average UK interest rates for the next five years, as 0.6%. Which at least is positive (unlike France, as they hate Macron even more), France (i.e., the Euro) rates are assumed to stay negative till after 2026.
This gloomy central scenario has a 50% chance, although for France it is a tiny bit better at 45%.
Now these are central estimates, but their âdownside scenario worst case outcomeâ for the UK is heavily weighted, with a chunky 30% chance, and oops, France then gets a 35% chance of that disaster, neatly using up the slack just given to them, by the central scenario.
Oh, and thereâs worse: house prices crater, double figure unemployment is locked in etc.
And thatâs a combined 80% of outcomes sorted; for a bank, that is pretty near certain.
China compared to the UK and France
What about Mainland China, then, their biggest market, if you now include Hong Kong. Well like the US (75%), China is at a high (80%) central scenario certainty, with Hong Kong at 75%. The worst-case scenario for the PRC is ranked at just a measly 8%, the lowest of any of their major markets.
Call it impossible - a prediction that China canât fail.
Well, if thatâs what the economists believe, who are the dumb Board to argue? Well of course they can, to cover their well-appointed posteriors, they then chuck another couple of billion of extra reserves in on top of the doomsday forecasts.
So, you see the vortex, everyone, regulators, economists, non-executives are just adding to reserves, like the good old days.
Maybe they are right, but we are seeing very little sign of those incredibly low global interest rates for five years, negative in France, 0.6% in the UK, 1.1% in the US? Really? If they are right, the markets are wrong.
And it is not just technical, with a 35% chance of France hitting the worst-case scenario, no wonder the Board has shipped out their French operations to a fin tech start up, albeit one backed by private equity giants Cerberus. Not an outfit known for overpaying. With five-year rates at 1.1% the dash for cash in the US makes sense too, selling out of their retail side as well. While with a virtually nailed on, global leading, 5% five-year average GDP growth in the PRC included, surely time to expand there?
Their loan book does not bear out HSBCâs bullish estimates of Chinese infallibility
So it is with some trepidation that we look at their loan book, on Real Estate, in China. It must be massive? Certainly, markets apparently assumed so last week. But no, a paltry $6.336 billion, for HSBC thatâs a rounding error. Luckily too, all rock solid, just $28m of reserves needed, although given their certainty that almost feels excessive. The Board probably slipped that bit in.
I have great admiration for HSBC, and for me personally it is a long-term hold, but I have much less regard for regulators and âeconomistsâ models, about which only one thing is certain. They are wrong.
So, I try to just strip out the predicted loan loss nonsense, but it is still driving asset allocations, even when palpably false. It explains much of the last two yearâs volatility in bank share prices and reported profits, it also justified the highly damaging dividend ban.
Yet the HSBC share price is still not much above 50% of its pre-COVID peak. Great investor protection that was, it hammered HMRC receipts too, for what? Based on what?
Does anyone challenge those weird scenarios internally at HSBC?
Is there really a 35% chance of France virtually collapsing in the next five years?
Or is this just part of cozying up to China? In which case as the IMF has shown, bankers accused of fiddling data for China, are not always seen as professionals and can lack credibility.
Regulators should not impose those odd fictions on real investment decisions either.
If they do real economies and yes jobs, suffer.
Charles Gillams
Monogram Capital Management Ltd
EVERY DOG
Boris seems slowly to be turning into the opposition to his own party, which I suppose is not new for him. Meanwhile China also seems to be hitting an identity crisis. Neither bodes well for investors.
We apparently have a real budget due soon, but this vain Prime Minister seems bent on upstaging his own team, so we had a pile of tax rises and changes to tax law bundled out in a haphazard fashion in response to the endless (and insatiable) demands of one ministry.
A likely collision course with natural Tories
That pretty well defines bad governance, and these ad hoc excursions into major spending plans are a hallmark of waste and short termism. So, to me the investor headline should be about planning ahead for the Tory government to either fail in front of an exhausted electorate, or less plausibly given the large majority, to implode. But have no doubt that No 10 and the mass of the Tory party are now set on a collision course.
The extraordinary extravagance of the blunt furlough scheme has always been the fiscal problem, and it is hard to believe, as many bosses are clamouring for new migration to solve multiple labour problems, largely in some measure of their own making, that the government has still parked up a fair chunk of two million workers, on pretty close to full pay.
I struggle to comprehend that number in a hot summer labour market, nor do I see why employers would cling onto staff until October at which point, presumably they take a decision? Are these ghost workers? Already happily in new jobs, but having done a deal with their bosses to split the loot, their fake pay for not being? Are these people HR have forgotten or are too scared to fire? Will they really try to pick up work they put down eighteen months back, in a largely different world and probably for a now quite alien organisation?
Who knows, but the whole thing cost ÂŁ67 billion (so far) and thatâs what Boris needs back. I challenge anyone to give a lucid explanation of how his latest proposal âfixesâ social care for the elderly. Nor to explain how in parts of the country like this, with no state care home provision anyway, it can ever be called âfairâ. So, to me, it is just bunce for the ever-gaping maw of the state, and the idea, with Boris in charge, that it will ever be temporary or even accounted for, is somewhat risible.
What would âfixâ social care is transparent, autonomous, local provision, not bullied by a dozen state agencies, not run by money grubbing doctors, not harried by property developers and absurd land costs, nor daft HMRC grabs on stand-by staff pay, and it needs to be highly invested in simple technology, all IT integrated with the NHS; not this crippled, secretive, subscale mess.
It is not that there is no problem, but it is as much operational as financial. A recent Bank of England paper looking at wealth distribution highlights how in retirement property comes to both dominate assets and also shrinks far more slowly with age.
(Sourced from this speech given at the London School of Economics, by Gertjan Vlieghe, member of the Bank of Englandâs Monetary Policy Committee.)
Of course, the crux here is seeing a family home as both an asset and an essential for life. That is the distortion, and this fiddling with care rules attacks the symptom, not the cause.
Can you trust a word he says?
So, now tax on income rises, a broken promise, employer tax rises, broken promise, the âtriple lockâ on pensions is ditched, broken promise, and to top it off those working beyond normal retirement age (now 66) get a 25% tax penalty, via another broken promise. Oh, and if you are mug enough to save, then dividends will get hit too.
Again, there is a real problem but this is by no means a logical answer either: I guess the Treasury were applying heat on excess debt, and this is sand kicked back in their face, but it shows no sign of anyone solving anything. The UK has both high debt levels and no supportive currency block around it, sure France and Italy look bad, but they have Germany to help. The UK does not. Hence the anxiety.
So, Boris has had a fine Cameron-like bonfire of dozens of electoral promises; the worm turned on Cameron (and Clegg) when he couldnât keep his word, and so it will turn on Boris. This time he wonât have Corbyn as the pantomime bete noir to bail him out. Indeed, Kier Starmerâs response linking this problem to inflated property prices is remarkably prescient, even if his typically confiscational solution is not.
These tax levels (as a % of GDP) have not been seen in fifty years, for an economy with a noticeably less effective grasp on government expenditure and a rather less globally competitive commercial base.
While tax rises are emerging everywhere (see below), and public service reform has become a simple money equation, need more service, spend more money, a dangerous one-way road.
Source: from this primary report
While notably, âbuy to letâ is again left untouched. London house prices have doubled in this century, the FTSE 100 has moved from circa 6800 at its late 1999 peak to 7030 now and remains below pre-pandemic levels. So clearly this is not the time to hit the investors in jobs and business, who have had a 5% nominal gain (that is a 60% real loss) in twenty years and yet to leave the buy to let rentiers trading in second-hand hopes, with their 60% real gain in that time, untouched.
And donât give us the dividends argument; the buy to let plutocrats get plenty of rent and all their sticky little service charges. This measure simply hits the workers and investors in business and pampers the bureaucrats and the rentiers. It makes very little sense, unless you are a senior civil servant or a retired prime minister, like Blair, of course.
Chinese insularity - the new version
Meanwhile China I feel is now detaching itself from both the rule of international law (in so far as it ever bothered) and more interestingly the world financial system. It may indeed end up better off, but for now (and this is also a change from much of the last 50 years) it does not feel it needs to attract external capital.
So much of its trade and capital markets engagement has been predicated on securing capital; this is an odd and novel twist. Although perhaps a logical response to the West, who rather than conserving capital as a scare resource, are immersing the world in torrents of surplus cash and inflation.
Much of Chinaâs policy about their own global investment (so outside China) also used to have the same theme, driven by the desire for returns, influence and to hold their own export-based currency down.
But no more, it seems, and their inherent desire for autarchy, the hermit kingdom trope, has only been emphasized by Trump, WHO and the madness of the internet. It apparently wants to be the new Germany, (no longer the new USA), so it will be insular and conservative: cautious, not driven mad by debt and the baubles it procures.
Well, if true it will be different, whether it can really be done, without a wave of disruptive defaults is unclear, but donât doubt the length of vision, so unlike our own government. While a theme of this century has also been where China leads, the rest must reluctantly follow.
Even a dog has its day, but for investors both the UK and China now feel significantly more canine than at the start of the summer.
ALL QUIET: Covid and UK Property
A brief glance at an excellent first half for investors: thoroughly ârisk onâ for the first quarter, but a slower but still an upward grind thereafter. Not that such arbitrary dates matter. What does count is what can make it kick on from here?
Covid patterns
So, first a glance at COVID, or rather our reaction to it. The disease itself is now less important in most OECD economies, they have the capacity to deal with it, vile though it is, and the vaccine numbers are rising steadily, faster than we expected in the UK.
This is a screenshot from this website at Johns Hopkins University : https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html
In raw demographic terms, in most places it is barely a flicker on the remorseless upward march of global population growth, but the extraordinary evasive action being taken mattered much more, and I see little sign of that abating.
Watch a dynamic map of all births and deaths at this site: https://srv1.worldometers.info/world-population/ (these figures include all deaths, not just from Covid 19.)
One of the key issues is that, for whatever reason, it is prone to sudden spikes, the only defence to which is almost complete (90%?) vaccine coverage. Indeed, the spikes can clearly ride quite widespread vaccination, higher than originally thought. But the spikes last weeks, perhaps a month, and for most of the year, most places are not experiencing them.
The trouble, especially in the UK, is our muddled policy response is to take down the economy on a semi-permanent basis, almost as a fetish against the lurking evil. To put in place colossal support measures for spikes that are transient is both cripplingly expensive and turns emergency response into embedded base cost. We are on a constant war footing, even when the enemy has seeped away to regroup.
So, despite Mr. Javidâs optimism, we do expect the bureaucracy to cling onto extensive controls, that limit capacity in public services and many consumer sectors. I had hoped that the ridiculous restrictions would bear down on the eliteâs summer holidays, but I now understand they donât care, as they clearly donât obey them anyway.
HOW MUCH MORE DELAY CAN THIS 'REOPENING TRADE' TAKE?
Which brings us to two thoughts, firstly the re-opening trade is shrugging off some mighty setbacks, and very little of the run up from last November was based on controls extending into 2022.
At some point balance sheets will start to crack, and values will then retreat.
Commercial property sector
The other is a more sector specific concern, but also a straw in the wind, in the extension of the UK commercial eviction ban well into 2022. I donât follow the logic of that, it is a significant ongoing seizure of private property rights, it is not clear to what end. It is not protecting jobs, unless furlough is also to be extended. It appears to assume businesses can occupy premises rent free for an extended time period, although the Government also suggests (slightly oddly) that much of their business support package (mainly loans, with government backing) can be used to pay rent.
Not that I care much for commercial landlords, who have long been over protected in the UK and exploitative, but it is to me, an odd move. We looked at real estate earlier in the year and expressed support for the TR Property Investment Trust in particular, in February, after which it has been on a run. But reading a quartet of March year end REIT annual accounts, I feel rather less sanguine: those are British Land, Land Securities, Helical and NewRiver.
The trouble here is they got hammered last year, with their March rent collections a mess, and double figure valuation drops on the retail side, they have been hammered again this year, with similar double figure write downs, and now it looks like they could be hammered for the current year too. Thatâs a lot of damage for the sector.
Office rents are holding up, collections are better, surrenders fewer, but they are running hard to stand still, with typical average lease lengths in single figures; this brings a lot of renewals too close for comfort. Time off debt maturities is also becoming significant.
Some Specifics on British Land, Land Securities, New River.
Equally clearly a lot of London occupiers, in particular, will have spare space, probably well into 2024 and maybe forever. Successive asset write downs, keep eating into the debt cushion, rates are low, so debt service is not an issue, but covenants are tightening, cash flow for development is getting squeezed and banks are not sitting back, just because the tenants have a state license not to pay.
They do differ of course, British Land is fairly serene, based on London offices. Land Securities having been boring for so long has appointed a new team, from the student accommodation and logistics worlds. Granted both were good performers in the last decade, but they are talking of ditching much of the existing portfolio, to chase development schemes. Brave if nothing else, one might say. Helical is smaller but goes for ultra-high quality office refurbishments and expansions, with tenants who can pay for quality, but each of their complex inner-city projects can take years to get through planning and their growth depends on a steady stream of them. After current ones complete, there will be a hiatus.
While NewRiver, always an aggressive high (and at times uncovered) yield stock, also looks strange. Debt is substantial, and another double figure fall in values could be harsh. Granted that would take more of its yields into double figure territory, in areas where demand (and alternative uses) should really provide a floor. But it also flirted with a badly timed foray into pubs, and their valuers are (to no great surprise) saying valuations for those are in the âwho knows?â realm. Meanwhile the finance man is apparently jumping ship to lead a spin-off of the licensed premises, which sends some quite odd signals, although maybe holders have tired of his complex skills.
This leaves a more bifurcated market than ever, but with the risk of overvaluations both in the good stuff (last mile logistics in particular) and storage in general, and in residential.
By contrast UK retail is looking ever more wounded. It has been a great reopening trade, but unless the runway is really getting cleared, take off may now be too late for some.
Meanwhile Boris canât seem to let go, having gained control, freedom is clearly an unattractive option to those in power. If that stays the same, we can see a perfect real estate storm brewing, if and when liquidity dries up a little.
The umbrella organisation, RICS, has in the mean time this summary to offer as its full market survey results.
Politics in the constituency of a murdered labour politician
Finally, the odd thing about Batley and Spen, was the idea that the Tories could win. I looked up the odds on Labour last week, at 4: 1 against, I found them most attractive. And that was based on my wrongly writing off Gorgeous George, who mercifully is one of a kind.
Without his strange allure it was and is very solidly Labour. Another non-story, I fear.
Charles Gillams
Monogram Capital Management Ltd
A HARD RAIN
WHEN WILL MARKETS RESPOND?
Everything is in the end politics; it just takes a long route on occasion and rather like a frog in water, markets take time to realize that the pleasant feeling of warmth is a prelude to being boiled alive. We are well into the boiling phase, but how long before it all registers and an escape is finally attempted?
The purpose of politics seems ultimately to take an individualâs wealth and the fruits of their labour and give it firstly to the friends and allies of the confiscatory state and then use the remainder to buy votes. That bit does not ever really change, whoever is in charge.
So how does that truism impact markets on each side of the pond? Well, traditionally the UK state has been far greedier and done far more harm to the economy, than the US state has, which is why both GDP per capita is far worse than the US, and the FTSE has failed to rise, even in nominal terms, in two decades. Add back inflation and investing in UK PLC has been a long-term wealth destroyer. It enjoys that characteristic with the rest of Europe. As we have long said, lift the lid on any sensible UK pension fund, and you will find a lot of Apples inside.
In general, and this too is a platitude, well run dictatorships, especially those with access to world markets, do far better still, hence the rise of China. Of course, âwell runâ and âdictatorshipâ seldom sit well together, but nor do âpopulistâ and âwell runâ. In general markets are not greatly in favour of either populists or dictators, feeling the rule of law is not something either care that much about. But by implication neither are voters now too fussed about laws either.
LONDON OR WALL STREET FOR THE REST OF 21? - THE BIGGER PICTURE
So, the investing question is whether the US, despite being increasingly under the control of the populist wing of the Democratic Party, is a better bet than the UK? Or do we have the capacity to process a bigger picture?
And of course, we need to ask whether China is better than both. So far, the US is finding Biden to be no worse than the populist wing of the Republican Party, and the UK is feeling rather baffled, given Boris constantly talks right but acts left.
Put like that our current sentiment, that Biden will cause more damage than Boris, is at the least contentious. So, we should look for the good in Boris and the bad in Biden, to help justify that call. Not an easy balance, but what makes it easier is the relative valuations. In particular of tech, where the US has moved ahead massively, so a lot of the question can almost be reduced to asking if Tesla is worth it? Or if it is, what is the motivating force to make it still more overpriced?
Boris seems to be trapped by the doctors and his inability to fathom numbers, into driving us into a permanent state of fear and welfare dependency, which will keep the UK steadily in long term decline. If he can break free of that populist vice, we might have a slim chance.
The omens are mixed, banning travel to Portugal (again) looks like the familiar science trap, but of course might be a reaction to the EU also banning wider travel from the UK to the EU just before that. Given our relations with the EU, that oddly seems more likely (if childish).
By contrast the US is now operating near normally, a stark contrast, as we remain in de facto lockdown, tied up in fiddly, unpredictable, illogical restrictions.
CULTURE WARS AS INDICATORS OF INVESTOR SENTIMENT
Both the Queenâs Speech setting out the legislative agenda for the year and the visit of Viktor Orban, the Hungarian premier, may have been light on substance (they were), but boy were they heavy with Tory symbolism, coming hard on the heels of the local election wins.
Much of that proposed legislation was to placate the grass roots, I seriously doubt laws on de-platforming (of both the living and the stone hewn) will make much difference, but the Conservative base feels it is high time the left got some mild resistance, in cultural matters. There has been very little of that for the last two decades.
I suppose the brutal bashing of Bashir is in the same category, although from my own experience a BBC journalist who did not lie and cheat their way to a non-existent story, would have been the truer rarity. Although in that they differ little from the rest of their breed, but defenestrations at the National Gallery and revolt at the National Trust, have been a long time coming and indicate a new degree of solidity and confidence. This is long overdue since Blair assiduously stuffed placemen into those organisations. Neither Cameron nor May did much about them, having their focus on higher things, it transpires.
Does it matter? Well not really, to markets, but it is a counter to the reckless spending, and the chilling clarity with which Boris famously expressed his view on business during Brexit, so is a straw in the wind. Maybe other things will change.
DEFUND THE DOLLAR?
What of Biden, well so far the US markets have taken slow comfort from the slender political majority, he holds, but the view is creeping in, that he really is going for broke, he is happy to unleash inflation, almost keen to do so, that letting Wall Street blow itself up, in the meme stock nonsense, and suppressing interest rates (which is vital if you are borrowing so much) and as a result trashing the dollar, is all fine, all part of the plan. Note the recent measures by China to prevent their currency appreciating too fast and by Putin (of all people) complaining at dollar fragility. Others may not attack it yet, but it increasingly looks like US policy.
Much of that perhaps matters little to Wall Street immediately; inflation makes you own real assets, bonds are now utter rubbish and so far, very little of US individual wealth is invested abroad. So, Wall Street almost inevitably drives itself up and thatâs a hard tiger to dismount.
But it maybe matters more to us Europeans, who need to both believe that US overvaluations will persist and critically that the dollar will not weaken further.
So, in the end politics do matter, not now, not today, but how these contrasting styles evolve over the rest of the year, will be very important to how currencies and markets respond.
Getting it right for the second half involves a big call, this year, as it did last.
Flat markets are not always still markets.
Charles Gillams
Monogram Capital Management Ltd
06.06.21